One of the
most basic constitutive elements of a person’s identity
is belonging. We belong to families, to communities of place, of language,
of faith, of profession, and on and on. We Christians believe in particular
that we belong to Christ. Participating in regular worship has the function
of perpetually reminding us who we are, and whose we are. Our identity—the
ultimate meaning of the life of each—grows from belonging.

Oddly enough,
the instantiation of each person’s identity requires
not only accepting that one belongs, but also that one does not belong.
I am the son of Raymond and Marthe, and cannot escape being part of the
family they founded from the families to which they belong. Yet I cannot
say that I belong to that family without being also able to say that I
am not identical with them—I do not belong. For in order to fully
realize who we are, we need to remember to whom we belong, and choose therefore
to continue in that.

Of course, within the Christian Church there are myriad communities. We
Episcopalians are part of the Episcopal Church, an international church
stretching from Taiwan to Europe. It in turn is a member of the Anglican
Communion. But do we belong to it, in the way that this writer belongs
to the Episcopal Church? Does the Anglican Communion shape our identity?
Can we live without it?

Its history is interesting, for the birth of the Episcopal Church, as
Philadelphians reminded the deputies and bishops at General Convention
1997, was the beginning of the Communion. William White, writing even before
the Treaty of Paris ended the American Revolution, considered the problem
of belonging to the Church of England, and yet being cut off from it by
its Establishment of religion. In The Case of the Episcopal Church Considered,
he noted that this belonging had always been more theoretical than actual.
The Anglican churches (as we would now say) in the colonies were part of
the Diocese of London, which did little more than ordain priests for them.
And yet he was loathe to abandon the essentials of the catholic form of
government, in particular the episcopacy, calling it “one of the
leading characteristics of the communion.”[1]

White used
the word “communion” throughout to denote belonging
to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The “Episcopalians” (he
uses that word) wanted to remain in that Church, and saw having Bishops
as essential in the ordinary existence of the Church, unless, as White
noted, the succession of bishops could not be obtained. (He went on to
propose that presbyters ordain one only until the irregularity could be
fixed.) In other words, the Episcopalians who went on to found our Episcopal
Church wanted to create a church they could belong to that had the essentials
of what the Church of England in her own history had carried forward. What
they did not want was the extension of the “tyranny” of the
Crown incarnate in the English bishops. They sought to maintain the communion
of the church catholic, yet not remain structurally part of the Church
of England. Belonging yet not belonging…

Thus the Church
of England had birthed a daughter church quite by accident. While she
was essentially the same, the Episcopalians took the underlying principle
of the royal supremacy—the ancient tradition of temporal
government of the Church by a layperson— and radically re-interpreted
it according their new-fangled democratic ideas. William White’s
interim step of presbyteral ordination turned out not to be necessary to
keep the communion. There was no break in the succession of the Episcopal
Church. And yet, this was no colonial replica of the mother church. The
polities of the two churches form the “bookends,” so to speak,
of the various polities of the other churches of what decided to call itself
the Anglican Communion.

The English
and American churches went on to found Anglican churches all over the
world. The forty-two other Churches of the Anglican Communion owe their
existence to one or the other, the English church working through its
missionary organizations, and the American church through constituting
the church itself as a missionary organization—the “Domestic & Foreign
Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States
of America.” Each church is autonomous and interdependent, “belonging
and yet not belonging.” Depending on its founder, each one has a
church polity inspired by the English or American model. In the twentieth
century, the Communion began to grow exponentially.

All of this
happened seemingly by chance, though this writer would prefer to say
that the Anglican Communion happened by divine Providence. Outside of
Heaven, however, there was no master plan for its creation. People looked
to the Archbishop of Canterbury as symbol of unity, as being the source
of our episcopal succession. As time went on, various forms of regular
meetings were instituted by the member churches at the request of Archbishops
to work on issues of common concern that arose. So the Lambeth Conferences
of bishops, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates’ Meeting
came to be. None of these so-called “Instruments of Unity” has
juridical power over the Communion, though it is commonly assumed that
the Archbishop of Canterbury can declare himself “out of communion” with
a member church.

That word
again—“communion.” Its
Latin etymology suggests diversity coming together to form a unity, Not
belonging and yet belonging. The particular relations among the churches
of the Anglican Communion reflect the original relationship between the
Church of England and the Episcopal Church of the United States. The
tension left after the American Revolution between the United Kingdom
and the United States has perdured. They routinely misunderstand their
very different forms of government, and so often misinterpret the other.
But also the relation between the two churches has also been marked by
a mutual desire to share the treasures of the reformed catholicism that
is Anglicanism, which the Episcopal Church received from the Church of
England, just as Americans received the English language.

The present
crisis in the Anglican Communion is indeed, as the Presiding Bishop has
noted, a costly invitation into deeper communion with one another. The
haphazard and accidental character of the Communion’s birth helps
us understand that sooner or later, issues would come to the fore that
would challenge the “belonging-not belonging” nature of the
churches’ relations with one another. The Windsor Report of the Lambeth
Commission on Communion (that word again) suggests remedies for the situation.
It is interesting to note that in the present crisis, the fault line is
between the daughters of the Church of England and the daughters of the
American church.

All the churches of the Anglican Communion are faced with the question:
should we continue to belong and not belong? Should we abandon what the
Windsor Report calls autonomy-in-interdependence? One way to resolve our
present situation is to choose independence over interdependence. Another
is to emphasize interdependence so as to eliminate autonomy.

This writer
will dare to opine that the key to resolving the crisis is not to be
found in adopting the solution of the Roman Church and centralize decision-making
and juridical power. If Anglicans want to go that route, however, the
papacy will be glad to help. While many of us have deep and justifiable
admiration for the Orthodox Churches, and have learned much that is precious
from them, their solution of enshrining ancient formulas does not appeal
to us, who have since the first Book of Common Prayer in 1549 preferred
to adapt to the needs of present circumstances the treasures we have
inherited. White’s Case is another example of this
enduring mark of Anglican identity. So are the consecrations of Barbara
Harris and Gene Robinson, and the practice of allowing polygamists to be
baptized without giving up all but the senior wife. While the reader may
consider any of these developments to be in error (the right of any Anglican),
they are arguably typical of this pragmatic adaptation of catholic principles
to situations the early church did not face.

The proper
resolution of the present crisis will be the development of an understanding
that the tension of “belonging-not belonging” is
a dialectic that may not resolved by going too far in either direction.
Then there will have to be theological understandings and administrative
procedures and structures that will seek to maintain that dialectic. But
there must be something deeper to make us do the hard work this requires.

The line of reasoning that William White followed was that communion was
to be maintained by any means necessary, even extraordinary ones. For our
communion is not just based on common history, lines of episcopal succession,
or the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The identity of Anglicans
is based on the one mark not heretofore discussed in this essay: Common
Prayer. What makes us Anglicans more than anything else is the sincere
regular use of the Book of Common Prayer as the basis of our worship. The
American church produced its first Book even before its constitution. The
1662 and 1789 Books were the backbone of the development of global Anglicanism,
and the models for the many modern Prayer Books in use around the world.

The Prayer Book liturgy is always and unfailingly about communion with
God and each other. We are not divine and God is not human, yet we belong
to God and God to us. In his humanity Jesus is not God but one of us; in
his divinity Christ is God but not of us. And yet, Jesus Christ is one
person, one identity. In the liturgy we are reminded perpetually who we
are and whose we are. Just as Jesus Christ is one with God the Holy Trinity,
so too we are one through Christ with God in the Spirit. This is the origin
and destination of our communion. We belong, yet are not identical. It
is this tension itself that makes us who we are. If we choose to resolve
it, it will be at the risk of the communion we have with God. Schism is
the worst sin, the Church Fathers taught.

The Windsor
Report ends by warning the churches of the Anglican Communion that if
we do not learn to “walk together,” we shall have to
learn to walk apart. But as we have “walked together,” there
has always been a distance, a “personal space,” that has been
maintained and honored as well. We need to learn how to preserve that manner
of “walking,” belonging yet not belonging. What we must never
forget is that the road we are walking on is the road to Emmaus.